Brexit fishing fear: UK hit back at ‘illegal’ Icelandic claim on fishing waters in Cod War

BREXIT will give the UK the opportunity to finally take back control of its fishing waters, but there are fears it could reignite the bitter Cod Wars with Iceland - yet documents unearthed by Express.co.uk reveal how the UK hit back at Icelandic claims, insisting that they had "no basis in international law".

We will use your email address only for sending you newsletters. Please see our Privacy Notice for details of your data protection rights.

By UN convention from 1982, the UK’s fishing limits stretch out for up to 200 miles from its shore or to the median point between its shore and its neighbour’s (eg. the Irish Sea or the English Channel). However, the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), enacted in 1983, means that fleets from every member state have full access to each other’s waters, apart from inside the 12-mile territorial waters. Meanwhile, Iceland has stayed out of the EU, but is in the European Economic Area (EEA), European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and the Schengen Agreement.

Related articles

In 1961, the two countries finally came to an agreement that allowed Iceland to keep its 12-mile zone in return for conditional access to UK boats.

However, by 1971, Iceland was planning to disregard the agreement and unilaterally extend its exclusive zone from 12 to 50 miles, citing concerns about overfishing.

Documents unearthed at the National Archives by Express.co.uk reveal how British diplomats insisted that Iceland extending their jurisdiction had “no basis in international law” and threatened to take them to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

According to a telegram from one British diplomat, the Icelandic government said on July 14, 1971 that the 1961 Agreement between the two governments would be terminated and that they intended to to extend the fishing limits by September 1, 1972.

The British Government hit back, arguing that the 1961 Agreement was not open to unilateral denunciation or termination, that the extension to 50 miles would be contrary to international law and that they had the right to go to the ICJ in the event of a dispute.

In a letter sent on July 17, the British added that they do not accept the right of any state to unilaterally assume jurisdiction over the high seas.

The Icelandic government then claimed on August 31, that the “object and purpose of the provision” in the Agreement for recourse to the ICJ had “served its purpose” in the intervening 10 years and was no longer valid.

They added that they found it essential to extend their zone of exclusive fisheries jurisdiction to protect the Icelandic economy, which is overwhelmingly dependent on fisheries.

The British responded on September 27 that such an extension would have “no basis in international law”.

Informal talks in December 1971 apparently exposed that Icelandic officials "thought it was a bad mistake”.

A British diplomat claimed they were “worried about our deteriorating relations and worried about being taken to the ICJ, although nobody was worried about economic sanctions, which would simply produce a Dunkirk spirit”.

They added that the prospect of the extension going ahead was, for the British, “too sad to contemplate”.

Edward Heath was Prime Minister at the time (Image: GETTY)

In November, 1971, exploratory talks began in London which, according to British officials “achieved little” with both sides simply restating their positions.

However, there was talk about a potential scheme of voluntary catch limitation by British and other vessels as an alternative to the extension of limits.

The British delegation argued it would “achieve the economic objective which the Icelanders have in mind without it being necessary to extend their limits unilaterally”.

The proposals outlined in the documents at the National Archives were as follows: The UK would limit their future catch in Icelandic waters to the average of its catch over the 10 years 1960-1969 inclusive, ie. 185,000 tons.

Trending

This would involve a significant reduction in their fishing levels circa 1971.

They added that the stocks were “clearly not being overfished” and that Iceland simply wanted to increase its share in circumstances where no overall cutback was biologically necessary.

One official wrote: “The most recent scientific evidence available to the Commission shows that stocks of demersal fish in the Icelandic area are in a satisfactory condition, and could indeed sustain more intensive exploitation.

“Nevertheless, having regard to the concern expressed by the Icelandic government that an intensification of fishing by other countries might lead to a depletion in stock, the UK would be prepared to limit the total catch of such fish by UK vessels in Icelandic waters.”

European fisheries (Image: EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS)

A second attempt to reconcile the two positions took place in Reykjavik in January 1972.

Ultimately however, Iceland did extend its limits to 50 miles, and then in 1976 extended them yet further to 200 miles, the joint largest limits in the world.

These extensions led to more clashes between Icelandic and British trawlers, along with Royal Navy fisheries protection vessels and Icelandic coast guard vessels.

Eventually NATO got involved, helping the parties reach another agreement in May 1976 over UK access and catch limits.

The UK was under pressure from NATO to concede, due to the strategic usefulness of Iceland in the Cold War.

However, this caused thousands of job losses in the UK and the British government decided to establish its own 200-mile limit.

Eventually, the UN decided to draw up the Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982, giving every sovereign nation an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of 200 miles or up to the median point with a neighbour.

However, this has not been properly tested in Europe as just a year later the EEC adopted the CFP opening up access to every EEC country, essentially making one huge EEZ.

There are fears that when the UK leaves the CFP, disputes will once more arise over who can wish in whose waters.

That said, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has promised British fishermen to defend their livelihoods in a way that they haven’t been defended in decades.